No. 23
ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS IN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
by A.C.R. Wheeler
Unesco : International Institute for Educational Planning
11ЕР/тм/23/б7
April 1974
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
7-9* rue Eugène-Delacroix* 75016 Paris
ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS IN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
by
A . C . R . Wheeler
This document is part of 'Fundamentals of Educational Plannings
Le с ture-Discus si on Series'«, designed by the H E P to provide basic
training materials in the field of educational planning» By their very
nature these materials* which draw upon tape recordings* transcriptions
and summary notes of seminars* lectures and discussions* are informal
and not subject to the type of editing customary for published documents,
They are therefore not to be considered as 'official publications' .
The opinions expressed in this lecture are those of the author
and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute,
The use* adaptation or reproduction* In whole or in part of these
materials is limited to institutions and persons specifically authorized
by H E P .
1
IIEP/W23/67
CONTENTS
PART I T№ DIVISION OP ACTIVITIES IN AN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS
1
INTRODUCTION
1
The Natur® of Pluming
The Educational Planning Process
The Issue of Directives for Planning
The Preparation of Plane
The Approval of Plans
The Implementation ©f Plans
Evaluation and Revision of Plans
Conclusion!
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
6
PART II THREE SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROBIER IN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
INTRODUCTION
8
8
A« The Location ©f Planning Agencies
B. The Relations between Planning* Administration and Polities
I» Structural Problems
2о Operating Problems
С» The Role of Public Opinion in Planning
8
10
11
11
12
SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL READING
14
ii
HEP/TM/23/67 - P a S e i
PART I THE DIVISION OF ACTIVITIES IN AN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
This is the first of two lectures. In this one my main intention is to
set out ал approach to educational planning as it interests somebody like myself,
who is very much concerned with organizational problems and changes. I shall not
try to go too much into detail about specific administrative problems in planning,
although hopefully some of these will begin to become clear. I shall, in fact,
reserve detailed consideration of some of the more complex administrative problems
for the second lecture.
I want to begin by setting up an "Aunt Sally" and knocking it down.
When I first became interested in educational planning a few years ago, I
was not then specifically interested in administrative problems, I was more con­
cerned with model-buildingо So, I then thought of planning, in the first place,
as an activity of a few very highly qualified experts, functioning in a rather
abstract way, probably in a very high and remote position, close to the Minister
of Education, far removed from everybody else in the educational system, who did
a lot of very technical exercises and produced a sophisticated document, which
hardly anybody else could understand, had this approved by some higher authority
and then their work was finished. The country had educational planning. I have now,
perhaps, gone to rather the opposite extreme and consider this a terribly narrow
way of looking at educational planning. To me educational planning is a far broader
activity than this obviously exaggeratedly narrow concept.
The Nature of Planning
I would ask you, first of all, to think what is the ultimate purpose of
educational planning. This sounds very philosophical and I do not want to be
philosophical, but I want to start from this rather remote point. I suggest that,
if somebody asked you this, you would have to end up by saying something like: the
purpose of educational planning is to advance educational improvements, whether
they are quantitative or qualitative, as rapidly as possible and as cheaply as
possible, to benefit individuals, to benefit the nation, etc. When you say some­
thing like that, you have to recongize straight away that you are speaking of
planning as a technique of operation, and I would suggest that you can also derive
from this several of the distinguishing characteristics of planning: it looks
ahead; it tries to foresee the future (in fact it tries to guide the future); it
endeavours to ensure that subsequent behaviour will be rigorous in terms of
achieving the maximum possible from a variety of alternatives with any given
resources (and when I say resources, I think in human as well as material terms).
Here, you can immediately see that, in approaching planning like this, we
are very much concerned with the success of planning. How can we ensure that
planning is successful, or is more successful than it has been? In connexion with
that, as soon as you mention success, the next question is obviously: What counts
IIEP/TM/2V>7 - page 2
as success? I would say, in the light of the earlier remarks, that success could
be regarded as the achievement of specified targets by specified means (and I
emphasize by specified means).
This obviously brings us to a consideration of a whole process of action
within which the technique of planning is being applied. So we come around to
deal with what, in the Institute here, we have come to call the "planning process ,
and I should like to talk this afternoon about this planning process, because it
seems to m© that all the administrative problems have to be situated within this
context.
The Educational Planning Process
It has often been said that the planning process can be divided into a
series of stages. Personally, I do not like the term "stages" and instead I shall
use the term "activities". I shall tell you why I choose to play with words like
this, as it may appear. As soon as you talk about stages in anything - stages of
growth, etc. - you obviously start thinking in temporal terms as a question of
how quickly one stage succeeds another. I think myself that the planning process
is a relatively complex опе'Г and to try to say that the different stages succeed
each other is very much of an oversimplification. Instead, I think that most of
the stages are, to a large extent, simultaneous. This is why I prefer to call them
activities, because I think it is then less confusing.
In discussing this planning process in more detail, I am going to talk as
if we were discussing planning at the national level. But I think you would find
that the type of analysis involved could be applied to planning at all levels
- regional planning, local planning -= and perhaps even the planning of the develop­
ment of a particular school.
Therefore, in discussing the planning process I want to consider with you
the various activities involved, in the first place, and secondly, the types of
people who participate in these activities. I would list five main activities
for consideration? the first of these,I call the "issuing of directives for
planning**! the second one, I call, the "preparation of plans"j the third one, is
the "approval of plans"j the fourth, the "implementation of plans"; and, fifth,
"evaluation and revision". I want to discuss each of these five, with special
emphasis on the personnel aspects who are the people concerned in this particular
activity? But in discussing each of these activities separately, I want to emphasize
very strongly that I am not trying to separate these activities, but simply to
distinguish them so that we can then go on to sea how these different activities
link up with each other and influence each other throughout the planning process.
The Issue of Directives for Planning
Let us turn to the first of the activities I mentioned, which I call the
"issuing of directives"» Fairly obviously, since education is a close personal
concern of almost anybody in a society, it is going to be very important for the
planners to try to act in accordance with opinions and this involves that there
IXEP/W2.V67 - page 3
should be some way that these opinions can be relayed to the planners. In the
simplest exêmpl©s the Minister of Education* as a politician* has to be susceptible
to opinions within society and can act as a means of relaying some general directives to the planners which will guide their work in formulating a plan. Obviously
that is on© possibility* but with a little reflection you can see there might be
several other equally possible ones. For example* in another country it might be
the case that it was not ®orauchthe Minister of Education who issued directives
like this* but it could* for example, be the Central Planning Commission. In yet
another country it might be that these directives would come mainly from a certain
political party* or again of course (and perhaps this is most likely) all of these
people - all of these sources - will be giving directives to the planners of education as to what they should do in preparing the plan. But further than this, and
to make it more complicated stilly the planners are not only the recipients of
such formal directives fr@m higher authorities* but it is also quite possible that
they may be subject to political influences of various degrees* the activities of
various pressure groups* etc» So that* in fact* the problem of the directives which
the planners r@c@iv© t© aid them in formulating the plan can be quite complex*
depending on the country concerned»
The Preparation of Plans
Given that the planners have received some guides as to what they should put
into the plan* th© next activity which I want to discuss is the actual one of "plan
preparation"» I think the study of educational planning in general was at first
most concentrated on this activity. In the first place there is a question of who
might be involved in preparing the plan. Obviously anything I say here may well
apply to one country* but definitely would not apply to another. Almost every country
has its own distinct arrangements in relation to the structure of authorities for
planning. But let us say as a generalisation* which is subject to correction in
individual cases* that the preparation of an educational plan is probably entrusted
to a small group of technicians. In current circumstances they may be more or less
trained tô do th© task.
Next* there is the question of the position of these people in the hierarchy
of the Ministry of Education. They may be directly linked to the Minister himself.
They may be* again depending on the structure of the Ministry* on the administrative
side of the Ministry* or* a^ is the ease in some countries* they may be closely
linked to the Chief Inspector of Education. But in all of these cases a very apposite
question in the preparation of the plan is the nature of their relations with the
other personnel in the Ministry. However* this is only one level of this question
of personnel relations. Depending on the structure of planning organs In the country*
there is also the question of their contacts with the central planners. Another
important aspect hsr<a is the question ©f the extent to which the Ministry of
Education controls education within the country, It is very often the case that
certain types of education are taken car@ of by other ministries. I am thinking
particularly that some kinds of vocational education might be with the #Ministry
of Labour* the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of
Industry* etc.* in which case the scope of educational planning may be more limited*
and such vocational education may b© left out of consideration by the Ministry of
Education.
1ГЕР/ТМ/23/67 - page 4
Again the range of duties of the officials charged with preparing the plan
will also partly depend on the nature of the other units within the Ministry of
Education. An obvious example here: Is there a specific Statistics Unit? If there
is not, then clearly a large part of the work of the planners will be in the
gathering of statistics, the processing, etc.
The Approval of Plans
Given the preparation of a draft plan, the next activity to which I want
to refer is the question of "approval of a plan". This, I think, has been a
relatively ignored activity in previous studies. The first question is: who is
going to approve a draft plan? Is it the Ministry of Education? Is it the Planning
Commission? Is it the Cabinet? Is it the legislature? Several factors will influence
the answer to this question. In the first place, the extent to which educational
planning is integrated with other types of planning is obviously very important
here. If educational planning takes place independently, then it is more likely
that the Ministry of Education will be responsible for approving plans. However,
if educational planning is closely integrated into other types of planning, then
the Planning Commission will obviously be very much concerned with this question
of approval.
Another factor which I would suggest is very significant here is the nature
of the political system... In some countries the legislature is a relatively weak
body. Political life maybe relatively undeveloped outside one ruling party or a
dictator. In this case, the government approval of the plan can go a long way to
ensuring that action will be taken to implement it. But in another country it may
be the case, and I would suggest to you that if it were ever the case that the
United States wanted to make a federal plan for education, it would be the case that
a very important body would be the legislature the Congress. The legislature is
relatively strong in the government system tnere. In which case the process of
approving the plan would be a rather different one from a country with a more
dictatorial or Cabinet type of government.
A third factor which will have an influence on the method of approving the
plan is the form of approval, the status of the plan once approved. In some countries
you find that the plan is given the status of a law. In other countries it is some­
what less formal. It is a directive of some kind, but it may not be given statutory
authority. In another country the plan may be kept as a rather secret document. This
question of the form which the plan takes when approved, I think, is probably very
influential on the nature and the extent of the activity of approval.
It is probably the case that the first formulation of the plan may go no
further than the Minister of Education, who may send it back to the planners to
reformulate; it goes back to the Minister; it receives some discussion in the
Planning Commission, and so there is this back-and-forth procedure and successive
drafts. Hence you can see from this that the activity of approval may be very
complex, and rather long drawn out. It may also be influenced by the content of
•'•-he plan at this stage; as to how detailed the plan has to be аз it comes out of
ПЕР/ГМ/2"3/э7 - page 5
the planning unit, and how technical it has to be. The degree of technicality may
well be influenced in turn by the competence of the people who have to approve
the plan. It is obviously very unlikely that it is much use submitting a document
full of demonstrations of econometric technique to a political assembly, because
very few of them would have much understanding of it. Therefore, I would suggest
that this activity of the approval of educational plans, which in the past has
tended to be taken for granted, is in fact very important and very complex.
The Implementation of Plans
Given the approval of the planp we come to the fourth of the activities
that I want to talk about* which is that of the "implementation of plans". It
is said very frequently nowadays that every country has a plan* or something
like one, but hardly any country is able to implement its plan* So it begins to
appear that it is very crucial to consider in much more detail what is involved
in this activity of plan implementation. Once again, the first question I would
ask is: who is responsible for the implementation of the plan? I think it is
relatively unlikely in a country of any size that the small group of officials
who prepared the plan have a great deal to do with carrying out in detail the
proposals contained within it. Hence, one of the problems 'aere becomes the
question of the structure of the Ministry of Education and the extent to which
the planners are integrated into the rest of the Ministry,
That only keeps this question within the Ministry of Education. There are
other ministries which are very much involved, Very obviously the Ministry of
Finance, or whoever is responsible for paying out the money that must be spent
in implementing the plan, has an extremely close interest, in implementation*
Secondly, I should suggest that in many countries the Ministry responsible for
local authorities will be very much concerned in this problem of Implementing
educational plans* since in many countries it is the case that education is the
major activity* in terms of expenditure, of local authorities.
Another very crucial factor which will help to determine the involvement
of the planners (by which I mean the people who prepared the plan) with its
implementation, will be the extent to which the plan is detailed in its formula­
tion* It is obviously the case that, in a country the size of India or Brazil*
a national educational plan cannot go into detail down to the level of individual
local authorities, or individual schools. It has to be a blueprint for provincial
action which in turn will be more detailed in relation tc these specific projects.
It may even be the case, therefore.«, that the size of the country helps to determine
the involvement of the planners in the implementation of their plans.
Also, we can see that in a larger country it begins to be true that what
is called the implementation of the plan at one level of government in fact
becomes the preparation of the plan at a lower level of government, since the
lower level receives more general directives which comprise the national plan,
and it in turn, at the lower level, has to interpret these, derive detailed
proposals from them and carry these out. So, the planning process here becomes
IIEP/TM/23/67 - Page 6
a multiple level one, and if we already have the impression that the planning
process is complex, it is very obvious that it is much more complex in the
activity of implementation, particularly in a large country.
Evaluation and Revision of Plans
Very closely tied up with implementation is the last of the five activities
I mentioned, that of "evaluating and revising the plan". This also has been
relatively neglected hitherto, perhaps this is because many countries are still only
beginning to undertake planning, and they may not even have reached this final phase
yet, or they may be too preoccupied still with the manifest imperfections of their
activities at earlier stages.
Obviously, the evaluation of the plan requires some sort of feed-back
mechanism from the lowest levels of the administration, in order that those at
the top may know wha.t goes on below them. Hence, a great many people are involved
in this activity of evaluation. But the final approval or disapproval of progress
being made h&s to be at a fairly high level in the administrative hierarchy. I
suggest, therefore, that the national planners, or people of a similar level, must
be very much involved in this evaluation task. However there is a good question
here as to whether it should be the planners themselves who should be evaluating
the plan, or whether there should be some other group of people for this. You might
say, on the on© hand, the planners should not have the task of evaluating their own
work. To the extent that there may have been mistakes in the plan, this is perhaps
the right thing to say. But on the other hand it may be some extraneous influences,
such as lack of financial resources which had been anticipated, which have caused
the plan not to be fulfilled, and which in turn have produced the need to revise
the plan. So, I do not think it is easy to say that it should be the planners who
evaluate, or it should not be the planners who evaluate. I think that they will
have to be involved in this, but perhaps they should not be the only people concerned in it.
Another problem in this activity of evaluation is the revision of the plan,
and here I would suggest that the way in which the plan is set out when it is
approved may be a factor to consider. If the plan has been formulated as a law
then it may be relatively difficult to amend a law. However, if the plan is simply
an internal document it may be much easier to amend it.
Conclusions
In talking briefly about each of these five activities which I have suggested
comprise the planning process, you notice that we constantly refer to the way in
which the character of one activity may influence what goes on in another activity.
Thus, I would suggest to you that the planning process is in practice quite a
complex concept. It will vary a great deal from country to country depending on
such variables as the administrative structure which I have mentioned in passing.
In particular the various activities will greatly overlap with each other in time.
In fact, it may even be the case, I think, that something could.be going on under
IIEP/TNl/2j5/67 - page 7
each of these five headings at the same time. May be that is a slight exaggeration,
but I think it is certainly closer to the truth than saying that each of these
activities will follow one another. What I would suggest to you is that each of
the five activities I have mentioned, in the order that I have mentioned them to
you, must be successive insofar as each of them must begin after the one before,
but the first activity does not have to stop before the second one can begin.
Each of the activities in the process must begin after the one before, but it
is by no means possible to say when each one will stop. Thus, I would think that
once a country has adopted planning and has gone on to its second and third plans,
it is quite conceivable that all of these activities will be going on at the same
time. The evaluation of the last plan may well be taking place at the same time
as the preparation of the next plan, for example, and somewhere within this you
will be having directives for the next plan, and similarly some of the first steps
for approval of the next plan may already have been begun. Similarly, again, some
of the winding up of the implementation of the last plan may still be taking place.
ИЕР/ТИ/23/67 - page 8
PART II THREE SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLENB IN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
INTRODUCTION
Three subjects are discussed in this lecture. The first of these is the
question of the possible locations of a planning agency within a government
structure and some of the- advantages and disadvantages of different locations.
Secondly, we consider a rather untidy subject, to which we give the heading
"Planning, Administration and Politics". Here, we discuss particularly relations
between planners and other government administrative personnel and some of the
difficulties of administration in developing countries. This is a vast subject
and all we can hope to do is to introduce some of the questions and issues that
are being raised in this area. Finally we devote some time to discussing the
pro's and con's of involving public opinion in planning.
A.
The Location of Planning Agencies
In turning to the first of these subjects, the position of planning agencies
in the government structure, we must emphasize that it is not primarily the education&I planning agency that we want to talk about - rather the economic planning
agency. We shall try to show how the location of the economic planning agency and
the extent of its powers has potentially a large impact on educational planning
and for that matter on all other types of sectoral planning.
If you made an inventory of the structure of government in different countries,
and the location of the planning agencies, you would probably find that nearly every
country has its own individual solution.
Thus, in discussing this subject, we have to approach it in rather general
terms. We would need a series of lectures on this subject alone if we were going
to discuss all the possible variations of structure that have been tried. Instead
we discuss only a few of the main alternatives which have been most commonly
chosen by different countries.
It is immediately possible to discern several important influences on the
location of the planning agency. In the first place, the degree of government
commitment to planning will help to determine where the planning agency is placed,
and secondly, the type of planning which is envisaged. Specifically, this allows
us to differentiate between what has been called the indicative type of planning
such as France practises and the type of planning which is characteristic of the
Eastern European countries, and all the variations in between.
Four possible basic alternatives for the location of the economic planning
agency can be suggested:
1. Attachment to the office of the Chief Executive, usually the Prime
Minister or the President.
ИЕР/Щ/23/07 - page 9
2. The economic planning agency can be within the Ministry of Finance
3- A specific Ministry of Planning
4. Inclusion of planning within the portfolio of another ministry, for
example, in one or two countries planning was included in the Foreign
Affairs Ministry. In fact planning has, at some time or another, been
put under almost every other ministry.
1. Returning to the first alternative mentioned - the association of economic
planning with the Chief Executive - the experience of different countries that have
tried this alternative is that this is probably the best location for an economic
planning agency. But, there is one very important reservation to be made. This
only works if the Chief Executive is himself actively interested in planning and
wants to foster it. Given this very important condition, then the planners who
are.working in close co-operation with the Chief Executive have the authority
that they need within the rest of the government structure. However, it is obvious
that this can be perhaps only a temporary solution. For example, if one Prime
Minister supports planning, well and good, but if his successor is not interested
in planning, then the authority of the planners probably declines.
2. The second alternative mentioned was location in the Ministry of Finance.
This is fairly complex to discuss since there are obvious advantages in having
the economic planners located thus, but also there are serious disadvantages.
Thus, the Ministry of Finance and the economic planners are both very much
interested in economic affairs, and hence they have to be in close contact with
each other. However, when looked at more closely, it is clear that this basic
common interest conceals important divergences. For example, the Ministry of
Finance has as a primary concern the government budget whereas the economic
planners are more concerned with the whole economy, meaning in most countries
mainly the private sector. Therefore, there begins to be a possible divergence
of interests.
But, a more basic problem is the difference of attitude between these two
authorities« The Ministry of Finance, basically, is an agency which hag to conserve
government's resources. On the other hand, planners have, as a primary task,, that
of expending national resources in aid of expansion. Here there might potentially
be a psychological split between these two groups of personnel. Thus in some
countries which have tried to combine the economic planners with the Ministry of
Finance, the Ministry personnel became very divided, e.g. in Sudan.
A further problem about locating the economic planners in the Ministry of
Finance is that the job of the Minister of Finance is one of the most exacting of
any Minister in the first place. So, if he is given all the additional responsi­
bilities of economic planning, it can become very difficult for one man to adequately
©xeroise all these duties. Thus, while it sounds a. good idea to put economic
planning in the Ministry of Finance, in practice there have been found tetoequite
serious disadvantages to this solution. But what must ba said, in any case, whether
or not the economic planning agency is found in this location, is that one of the
closest linkages the economic planners must have is that with the Ministry of
Finance.
IIEP/TM/2V67 - page 10
3. The third alternative I mentioned was that of establishing a separate
Planning Ministry. Many countries have done this, though not always calling it
a planning ministry. A Ministry of Economic Development is a very common alternative
title. This has the possible advantage that it can concentrate expertise very
easily in one ministry which is totally concerned with planning, and if the minister
who is in charge is an advocate of planning, a potentially dynamic organization may
be created. Tha difficulty with this solution is that a new ministry is introduced
into a structure of existing ministries. Because of the nature of planning, this
means that a ministry which is only of equivalent authority has, in some way, to
control or oversee the other ministries. This, in turn, possibly creates a great
deal of resentment among operating ministries, such as the Ministry of Education.
There have been well-documented instances where, following the establishment of
a planning ministry, former practices were maintained and the authority of the
planners was circumvented by operating ministries going directly to the Ministry
of Finance to obtain funds, etc. This suggests that, unless the planning Ministry
is given some special authority that raises it above the other Ministries, in
practice it is relatively difficult for it to operate as it should.
4. The last alternative mentioned was that of including planning within
another ministry. The arguments just advanced against a separate planning ministry
obviously apply even more strongly in this case, which suggests that this is not
a good alternative.
To sum ups these thoughts suggest that the two former choices = locating the
economic planners with the Chief Executive, or else, with the Ministry of Finance =
tend to have more advantages on their side than the others.
For our purposes the important question arising from these ideas is as to
how the location of the economic planners affects the educational planning agency?
The degree of authority of the economic planners within the government structure,
is likely (to put it no stronger) to be related to the amount of authority of the
educational planners within the Ministry of Education. This suggests the potential
existence of an opposition between the educational planners and the rest of the
Ministry of Education. Hopefully, this is not the case but in practice it appears
often to have been so. Therefore, the stronger the economic planners the more they
can possibly re«inforce the educational planners in their own ministry. However,
this is a very tentative statement. It is open to much more detailed discussion
in relation to specific cases.
B,
The Relations between Planning,, Administration and Politics
This immediately leads us to the next subject, the question of relations
between planning, administration and polities and the attitudes of the other
parties to planning.
The basic problem here is that planning has sometimes become characterized
as some kind of specific expertise which is isolated from other government functions.
Thus many of the publications of planners are quite technical in appearance as
compared with other government publications. So, the idea has grown up that planners
have some special expertise which other administrators do not possess.
IIEP/EM/23/57 - page 11
A partial answer to this is that the planners should try5 when preparing
a plan» to involve in this task of preparation as many as possible of the interested
parties and specifieally^ all those people in the government service who are going
to have any part in implementing the plan. Thus^, this suggests that the basic
approach should not be one of the isolation of the planners from other personnel.
On the contrary, the planners should endeavour - through consultations, meetings,
etc«, - to encourage the contributions of their colleagues in the administration
with a view to obtaining their active support of the proposals incorporated in
the plan. However¿ like all brief statements* this is a counsel of perfection.
In practice* it ignores the many serious operational problems* faced by administrations in developing countries«, which we go on to discuss next.
1. Structural Problems. Every country is developing at some level or other,
and» if we look back in its history to the period when government was being
established» we generally find that the original tasks of government were maintenance
of law and order and the collection of tases. An enquiry as to the date of foundation of different ministries» would probably show that the first to be established
were those of Justice and Finance. However» in recent years» as it has become the
policy of governments to concern themselves with the development of the societies
they govern» this has required both great expansion of the tasks of government and
a change in their character. Governments are no longer trying to maintain the status
¡quo,, instead they are trying to change it in specific directions. This has» obviously,
had its impact on the administration. At its simplest» it has meant a need for more
administrative personnel and for new eompeteneee» which has placed great strains on
administrations.
Among such problems of structure must be mentioned the tendency in many
countries for politicians to influence the recruitment of civil servants and their
promotion. Secondly» the administrative structure is not at all suited to the task
that it now has to undertake. It is commonly the case that thare are more people
than are needed at the lowest level (too many messengers» too many clerks)» but
not enough top administrators, at least not well-trained ones» More particularly»
it is often \?®rj difficult to find people *iho can fit in the middle«level posts
of an administration, as assistants to the top administrators. Even m e n wellqualified personnel are available» it is very often the case that their qualifications are not used to advantage and there is seldom any extra payment given to
people with special qualifications. Conversely,, this provides little encouragement
to others to acquire such qualifications,. Ш @ г е there are detailed regulations for
administrativ® conduct» thsy tend to be one of the most difficult aspects to change,
Such rigidity allows an inefficient administrator, once he has a position, to be
fairly safe in it.
2«, .Opgrating Problems,-. The procedures ©f administration are often extremely
cumbersome. When any action has to be taken a great many forms have to be filled
out and then countersigned by different people * The amount of paper work involved
is out of proportion to any result that can be expected. In any case* before
action can be undertaken^ everybody wh© might be involved has to be consulted.
Thus files circulate up and down the administrative hierarchy for a long time
before a decision is- finally takan.
11ЕР/Щ/23/67 - page 12
The last point mentioned was the problem of files having to go to too
many people before any action was taken on a matter. The next point may perhaps
sound contradictory, but it is that there is very commonly a lack of co-ordination.
There is no co-ordination between the people who should be in co-ordination, between
different ministries or between a ministry and its regional and local administra­
tion. The type of consultation which does take place, through circulation and
minuting of files, is no substitute for such co-ordination.
While, obviously, all of these problems desirably should be solved, they
are really reflections of a more basic problem-. This is the problem of attitudes,
the problem of making the people involved more dynamic, making them want to over­
come the problems, want to act, want to produce progress. This is the basic problem
which educational planners will have to face: the problem of revising attitudes
both among the people they work with and among the people they are trying to benefit«
C.
The Role of Public Opinion in Planning
It is quite frequently said, almost as a truism, that the public must be
involved in planning. But, one seldom hears much more on the subject. Why is this?
It can be considered from two viewpoints; the involvement of the public in the
preparation of plans, and secondly, their involvement in the implementation.
As mentioned earlier, it is very desirable that all those actively involved
in implementing a plan should be brought into its preparation. It is also desirable
that all those people with an interest in the matter to be planned be involved in
the preparation of plans. The planners should invite their co-operation and
encourage their understanding of the objectives of the plan. In the case of educa­
tional planning, such people would be the representatives of private education,
Teachers' Unions, parents, perhaps some politicians who are especially interested
in education, and may be even some of the older students.
Desirably, such people should be invited to contribute their ideas for the
content of the plan and then discussions should be held in order that they should
see how the planners can or cannot make use of these ideas. However, saying this
is not to imply that the Teachers' Unions, Parents' Associations, etc., should
be making the plan. It is essential that the government remains the final authority.
Thus, in such a process of consultation, the Minister of Education at some point
will have to set out the authority of the planners and his backing of them, while
simultaneously specifying the interest of the government in having public co­
operation in its policies, both to try to do what the public wants and also to
ensure that the public sees the need for what the government proposes.
This aspect of the involvement of public opinion in planning has been
relatively ignored. Generally, when people talk about involving public opinion
they have in mind some kind of appeal to the mass of the population to support
the plan. It is not immediately obvious what this means. In the case of education,
a great many of the people are going to be affected by the actions carried out
under the plan, whether as parents or students, or administrators. What meaning
ИЕР/ТОД/аЗ/67 - page 13
can then be attached to the concept of supporting the plan? Does it mean asking
people not to obstruct proposals disagreeable to them? Such a demand begs many
political questions.
How are people to be involved in a plan with regard to its implementation?
Examples can be drawn from two countries which have made specific efforts in
this direction. In India (which perhaps has had more experience of planning than
most countries) the Ministry of Information has for the last ten years published
a journal which is specifically intended to publicize planning. It does not only
express official viewpoints since articles highly critical of Indian planning
are sometimes published. What proportion of the population is reached by this?
When you notice that the journal is published only in English and Hindi, which
are only two of the many languages spoken in India (though obviously two of the
most important) and then look at the nature of the articles, it is clear that
somebody who has never studied economics would have difficulty in following
much of the contents. Therefore, it seems that this can only reach a relatively
small proportion of the people.
The other country referred to is Kenya which went to the length of writing
a small report about the plan which was entitled "African Socialism and its
Application to Planning in Kenya". But again* this was a relatively sophisticated
document and its purchase price quite high in relation to most African incomes.
It appears that such efforts cannot reach very many of the people, especially
where there is a large proportion of illiterates in the population.
These types of efforts are designed primarily to influence the opinion
leaders among the community. It is only the more educated who can understand and
appreciate such journals and publications. This still leaves the largely uneducated
urban or rural mass of the population uninvolved.
Mass media are the only way of communicating with people on this scale, and
radio suggests itself as the best for this purpose. Here again., to communicate
with people in the village-, it is essential to talk about what concerns them;
to show how the plan is going to affect their lives. It is no use talking about
how the plan is going to raise national income because national income does not
mean anything to them.
HEP/TM/23/67 - page 14
Suggested Additional Reading
Beeby, C.E. Planning and the Educational Administrator, Paris, United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization/International Institute
for Educational Planning, 1967Gross, B.M. (ed) Action under Planning, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967«
Gross, B.M. The Administration of Economic Development Planning; Principles
and Fallacies, New York, United Nations, 1966 (ST/TAQ series, M/32).
Hanson, A.H. The Process of Planning: A Study of India's Five-Year Plans,
1950-19%%, London, Oxford University Press, 1966.
Waterston, A. Development Planning; Lessons of Experience, Baltimore, Johns
Hopkins, 1965.
Wheeler, A.C.R. The Organization of Educational Planning in Nigeria, Paris,
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization/
International Institute for Educational Planning, 1968.